EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-665/17: Action brought on 27 September 2017 – China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0665

62017TN0665

September 27, 2017
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/49

(Case T-665/17)

(2017/C 402/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: A. Carboni, J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupement des cartes bancaires (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark figurative mark containing the word element ‘CCB’ — Application for registration No 13 359 609

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 2265/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision and remit the EU trade mark application no. 13 359 609 to the EUIPO to allow it to proceed to registration; and

order EUIPO and any intervening parties in this Appeal to pay their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal before the First Board of Appeal in Case R 2265/2016-1 and of Opposition B 2 524 422 before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation EUTMR by basing its decision on reasons and evidence on which the Applicant had no opportunity to present its comments;

Infringement of Article 76(1) EUTMR by taking account of facts, evidence and arguments not submitted by either party and evidence which was not filed in the case;

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR as a result of the above infringements and also by incorrectly applying the guidance of the Courts as to how to assess the likelihood of confusion.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia